Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

The Lost Closet

Here's a neat religious prison ministry I'd not heard about: Linda Ann White of Leander has created "The Lost Closet," a nonprofit that gives clothes to women leaving prision, focused on a women's unit in Burnet County in the Texas Hill Country. The Austin Statesman has a nice article about the group today:

The Lost Closet, a nonprofit ministry that gives outfits to women preparing to leave prison, welcomes donations of new and gently used women's clothing, especially jeans and plus-size items.

It also accepts monetary donations.

For more information, contact founder Linda Ann White at 336-1174 or the Leander Assembly of God at 259-4131. Learn more at www.thelostcloset.org.

That's a good idea for a church charity project: Limited in scope because it's a volunteer gig, but targeted toward a real, tangible need that helps facilitate prisoner re-entry. Hopefully Congress will pass the Second Chance Act this year to expand funding for re-entry programs including religious projects like The Lost Closet.

3 comments:

Penn was a leader of the quakers in London. The sect was not recognized by the government and was forbidden to meet in any building for the purpose of worship. In 1670 William Penn held a worship service in a quiet street which was attended by a peaceful group of fellow Quakers. Penn and another Quaker, William Mead, were arrested on a charge of disturbing the King's peace and summoned to stand trial. As the two men entered the courtroom, a bailiff ordered them to place their hats, which they had removed, back on their heads. When they complied, they were called forward and held in contempt of court for being in the courtroom with their hats on.

That was only the beginning. Penn demanded to know under which law they were charged. The court refused to supply that information and instead referred vaguely to the common law. When Penn protested that he was entitled to a specific indictment, he was removed from the presence of the judge and jury and confined in an enclosed corner of the room known as the bale-dock. From there, he could neither confront the witnesses who accused him of preaching to the Quakers nor ask them questions about their charges against him.

Several witnesses testified that Penn had preached to a gathering which included Mead, but one showed some hesitancy as to whether Mead had been present. The judge turned to Mead and questioned him directly. In essence, he was asking Mead if he were guilty. Mead invoked the common-law privilege against self-incrimination which provoked hostile comment from the judge. The court then sent Mead to join Penn in the bale-dock out of the sight of the jury and witnesses. After the testimony the court instructed the jury to find the defendants guilty as charged. Penn tried to protest, but was silenced and again sent out of the courtroom.

The jury, for its part, proved sympathetic to the two defendants, and refused the judge's command to find the defendants guilty. The judge was furious and sent them away to reconsider.* When they returned with the same verdict, the court criticized the jury's leader, one Bushnell, and demanded "a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco. . . . We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it."

[* Note: Actually the jury found them guilty of "speaking onGracechurch Street" and nothing else. Starling was infuriatedbecause the act about which the jury found the accuseds guiltywas not a crime.]

Three more times the jury went out and returned with the same verdict. Finally, they refused to go out any more. The judge fined each of them forty marks and ordered them imprisoned until the fine was paid. Penn and Mead went to prison anyway for obeying the bailiff's order that they put on their hats. Later a writ of habeas corpus won freedom for the jurors while Penn and Mead left jail to come to America.

Earl Warren, "A Republic, If You Can Keep It", pp. 113-115

************************************************************

Penn: I desire you would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment. Rec.: Upon the common-law. Penn: Where is that common-law? Rec.: You must not think that I am able to run up so many years, and over so many adjudged cases, which we call common-law, to answer your curiosity. Penn: This answer I am sure is very short of my question, for if it be common, it should not be so hard to produce. Rec.: The question is, whether you are Guilty of this Indictment? Penn: The question is not, whether I am Guilty of this Indictment, but whether this Indictment be legal. It is too general and imperfect an answeer, to say it is the common-law, unless we knew both where and what it is. For where there is no law, there is no transgression; and that law which is not in being, is so far from being common, that it is no law at all. Rec.: You are an impertinent fellow, will you teach the court what law is? It is "Lex non scripta," that which many have studied 30 or 40 years to know, and would you have me tell you in a moment? Penn: Certainly, if the common-law be so hard to understand it is far from being common. Trial of William Penn. 6 How. St. Trials (1670) 951, 958. Penn was refused admittance to the Quaker Meeting Hall and in protest began to preach in the street. He was indicted under the common law for taking part in an unlawful and tumultuous assembly. The jury refused to render a verdict of guilty and were taken into custody.

GfB Writer Bios

Subscribe by email

Support Grits via Donation

Donate to Grits via PayPal. Grits is a hobby, but donations help cover newspaper subscriptions, periodic travel, open records fees, etc.. Donate if you can! When I have resources, the blog can do more stuff!

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Conroe

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"

- Rob Patterson, The Austin Post"Scott Henson's 'Grits for Breakfast' is one of the most insightful blogs on criminal justice issues in Texas."

- Texas Public Policy Foundation

"Nobody does it better or works harder getting it right"

David Jennings, aka "Big Jolly"

"I appreciate the fact that you obviously try to see both sides of an issue, regardless of which side you end up supporting."

Kim Vickers,Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and EducationGrits for Breakfast "has probably broken more criminal justice stories than any TX reporter, but stays under the radar. Fascinating guy."

Maurice Chammah,The Marshall Project"unrestrained and uneducated"

John Bradley,Former Williamson County District Attorney, now former Attorney General of Palau

"our favorite blog"

- Texas District and County Attorneys Association Twitter feed"Scott Henson ... writes his terrific blog Grits for Breakfast from an outhouse in Texas."